Side-Lights Upon the Assessment and Collection of the Mediæval Subsidies Author(S): James F

Side-Lights upon the Assessment and Collection of the Mediæval Subsidies Author(s): James F. Willard Source: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 7 (1913), pp. 167-189 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal Historical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3678420 Accessed: 27-06-2016 09:24 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press, Royal Historical Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Royal Historical Society

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SIDE-LIGHTS UPON THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF THE MEDIAEVAL SUBSIDIES.

By Professor JAMES F. WILLARD, Ph.D.

Read June 19, 1913. ONE of the most striking phenomena of the financial history of the thirteenth century was the introduction and the rapid increase in use of the principle of national direct taxation of personal property. In the first half of that century the successor of the danegeld, the carucage, was dropped from the financial system; scutages as well as the other feudal dues were proving to be difficult to collect; and it remained to develop new methods of raising a revenue. The new principle of direct taxation of personal property was shown to be both workable and remunerative during the reign of Henry III, and it was seized upon with avidity by Edward I during the financial strain caused by his wars with Wales and France. During the fourteenth century the lay subsidies, as such taxes may be called, were levied frequently whenever there was a special need. The new kind of tax had several marked characteristics by which it may be recognised. It was, in the first place, levied upon all the people, bond and free, without distinction of status in society or tenure of landholding; it was a tax upon personal property, upon movables according to the technical language of the mediaeval officials ; and it was a grant of a proportional share, a ninth, a tenth, a twentieth of the value of such movables for the use

1 During the fourteenth century the clergy granted taxes in con- vocation and there was a separation between clerical and lay subsidies. Yet, even then, they were taxed with the laymen for personal property upon temporal lands acquired since 20 Edward I, the date of the taxation of Pope Nicholas IV.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 168 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY of the government. From its beginnings it was always an extraordinary tax, requiring the assent of a national assembly, a council or parliament, before it could be imposed upon the nation. After passing through a period of uncertain experi- mentation, the new tax acquired a recognised standing in the mediaeval financial system owing to the use made of it by Henry III. Four such subsidies were levied during his reign, an average of one in approximately fourteen years., Edward I, however, seems to have realised the manifold advantages of the principle and made far more use of it. There were nine such subsidies levied during his reign, an average of one in a little less than four years.2 When he was at war with the French and Welsh the new form of taxation was his most remunerative source of revenue. The dates of the grants are instructive. Such subsidies were granted in 1275, 1283, and 129o0; then, when the strain became greater, in 1294, 1295, 1296, and 1297. The remaining two subsidies were granted in 1301 and 1306. During the reign of Henry III the same proportion of the value of their personal goods was demanded from the inhabitants of the rural districts as from the dwellers in the urban centres. This precedent was followed in the first three subsidies of the following reign. In 1294, however, the practice was begun of differentiating between the rural and urban districts. The tax of that year was a sixth and tenth. From the men of the cities, boroughs, and ancient demesne a sixth part of their movables was demanded, while from the men of the rural districts, with the exception of those living on ancient demesne land, was demanded only the tenth part of their goods. The plan of separating the rates was followed in three of the 1 A fifteenth (1225), a fortieth (1232), a thirtieth (1237), and a twentieth (1270). 2 A fifteenth (1275), a thirtieth (1283), a fifteenth (1290), a tenth and sixth (1294), an eleventh and seventh (1295), a twelfth and eighth (1296), a ninth (1297), a fifteenth (1301), and a thirtieth and twentieth (1306).

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDIEVAL SUBSIDIES 169

five subsidies levied during the remainder of Edward's reign. To Edward II seven subsidies were granted, in all but two of which the plan of differentiating between town and country was followed.' The first subsidy of the reign of Edward III, that of 1327, was a twentieth of movables; the second, a fifteenth and tenth; then the methods of assessment and collection which had been developing for over one hundred years gave place to a new plan. In 1334 there was a considerable amount of complaint made of the alleged corrupt practices used in the collection of the subsidy of 1332. This agitation led to an investigation of the charges and to a special form of assessment and collection for the subsidy of 1334.2 The assessment took this form: royal commissioners were sent to the various units of taxation, usually the townships and boroughs, and there entered into an agreement with the people of those districts upon the sum to be paid by them to the King for the fifteenth and tenth. These investigations, added to the evidence gathered elsewhere, showed all too clearly that the charges of corruption were well founded. When, therefore, in 1336, the next subsidy was granted, Parliament demanded and the King agreed that the fifteenth and tenth of that year should be of the same amount as that of the newly and justly assessed tax of 1334.3 Whenever such taxes were granted thereafter, the same principle was adhered to, the standard in each case being the subsidy next preceding the present grant. Barring exemptions or special re-assessments for cause, within each county the amount paid by every township and borough remained the same as that agreed upon in

1 A twentieth and fifteenth (1307), a twenty-fifth (1309), a twentieth and fifteenth (I313), a twentieth and fifteenth (1315), a sixteenth and fifteenth (1316), an eighteenth and twelfth (1319), and a tenth and sixth (1322). 2 Rotuli Parliamentorum, ii. 447-448. 3 Fine Roll, No. 136 (io Edward III), m. 17. The writs are dated April 7, 1336.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 170 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

1334, as long as the fifteenths and tenths, in this form, persisted. The official documents speak of proportional rates, but the fact was that there was no necessary relation- ship between the amount of personal property held by any individual and the sum that he paid to the collector of the subsidy. A grant of a fifteenth and tenth by Parliament meant that the government would receive, sooner or later, approximately ?38,000, that being about the value of the subsidy of 1334. This brief description of the increasing importance of the new tax has paved the way for a discussion of the methods of its assessment and collection. In order to avoid dealing with the long period during which the principle of direct taxation of movables was still largely in the experimental stage, or with that of the new system which came into being after 1334, this discussion will be limited to the period 1290-1332. Immediately after a tax upon movables was granted by Parliament, several men were appointed for each county to take charge of the assessment and collection of the tax. These were known as the chief or head taxors and collectors. With the writ notifying them of their appoint- ment there were sent certain formal directions as to the manner of this assessment and collection. These were called the 'form' of the taxation. From this form it is possible to gain a knowledge of what the duties of the assessors and collectors were. The general principle used in the assessment of personal property was the same throughout the period under discussion, this principle being that such property should be valued by juries, composed of men selected from the local districts directly concerned. All movables, unless they were specifically exempted, were to be valued, and every man, unless he was specially excused, was to pay to the subsidy in proportion to the assessed valuation of his property. The details of the plan, however, underwent certain

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDIEVAL SUBSIDIES 171 changes during the period. According to the formal instructions issued from I29o to 1296, the head taxors were to summon before them from every hundred in the county to which they were assigned the most important men.' Of these they were to cause to be chosen a jury of twelve for each hundred, and these juries, assisted by the reeve and four men from each township, were to make the assessment. Such were the directions given to the head taxors. In practice there seems to have been a fairly strict observance of these instructions. On the rolls of the taxation that have been preserved the hundred juries of twelve men are everywhere in evidence, but the local juries of assistance vary in number from two to four men, and the reeve is very infrequently mentioned. There is something historically fascinating to modern students in the references made by official documents of the thirteenth century to the reeve and four men of the townships, but the men of the thirteenth century do not seem to have been equally impressed. In 1297 and thereafter, with the exception of the year 1306, the jury of twelve was abandoned and the local assessment was placed in the hands of two or more men of the townships and boroughs.2 These men were, according to the instructions issued in 1297 and 1301, to be chosen by the men of the local districts; after the latter date it was directed that they should be selected by the chief taxors. Though the writs stated that there was to be a group of assessors for each township, in practice the local unit of assessment varied to suit local convenience. The normal unit was the township, but in some counties the hundred was used, as in Sussex, or groups of townships,

1 The formal instructions to the collectors may be found in Vincent, Lancashire Lay Subsidies, i. 177-178 (I290), 181-182 (1294), 188 (1295), 192 (1296). 2 The instructions may be found in Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs, i. 62-63 (1297), 105 (1301), 179 (1306) ; ibid. II. ii. 15-16 (1307), 39 (1309), 117-118 (1313), 163, 164-165 (I316), 213 (I319), 279-280 (1322) ; Rot. Parl. ii. 426-427 (1327), 447 (1332). The instructions of the year 1315 are found on L.T.R. Originalia Roll, No. 75 (8 Edward II), mm. 29, 30.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 172 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY as was frequently the case in Shropshire, Berkshire, and elsewhere, or even manors, as in Somersetshire.1 The local assessors, called also sub-taxors or sub-assessors, were directed to make a house-to-house canvass in order to settle upon the personal property each man had in his possession on the day named in the 'form' of the taxation. This was usually Michaelmas Day. The sale or destruction of property subsequent to that date, if it happened that the assessors reached a man's house later, was not to excuse anyone from the valuation. The assessors were not to value for the subsidy the goods of any person who did not possess a certain minimum amount of movables, and they were to omit from their assessment various kinds of movables belonging to everyone.2 The minimum amount of property to be taxed was so fixed that the poor men of the country should not be burdened with taxation. This minimum was in I29o fifteen shillings. From 1294 to 1297 inclusive it varied with the rate of the taxation, the tenth and sixth having ten shillings and six shillings respectively, the eleventh and seventh eleven shillings and seven shillings, and so on. There was no exemption of small holdings of property in 1301, this being the sole departure from the usual practice. After that date the minimum was ten shillings, with the exception of the years 1307, 1322, and 1332, when it varied from this standard. The list of exempted movables did not vary after the year I290.8 The following personal effects

1 The practice in Sussex may be investigated in Sussex Record Society, volume x. ; for Shropshire see Shropshire Arch. and Nat. Hist. Society Trans. 2nd Series, i. 129-200, iv. 287-338 etc.; for Berkshire see Exchequer Lay Subsidy 73 (1327) ; and for Somersetshire see Somerset Record Society, volume iii. All of these examples are from rolls of the subsidy of 1327. 2 The directions as to the minimum amount of goods to be taxed and the goods excused from taxation are found in the instructions referred to above. 3 Since this paper was read I have found that in 1301 only the goods belonging to the knights, gentlemen and their wives, as described in this paragraph, were exempted. There was no list of exempted goods of the men of the cities. K.R. Memoranda Roll, No. 75 (30 Edward I), m. IId.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDIEVAL SUBSIDIES 173 were to be excused in the rural districts: the armour, riding-horses, jewels and clothing of knights, gentlemen and their wives, and also their vessels of gold, silver, and brass. For the men living in the cities and boroughs the list of goods excused included a garment for a man and one for his wife, and a bed for the two; one ring, one clasp of silver or gold, and a girdle of silk, if these were in daily use; and a drinking-cup of silver or mazer. There were also many special exemptions which had to be observed by the assessors and collectors. Because of poverty, fire or devastation, the property of individuals, of hospitals and abbeys, of townships and boroughs, and even of the men of a county were excused from taxation. There was one permanent exemption, always mentioned in the instructions. The goods of lepers who were under the rule of a master leper were pardoned all lay subsidies. Having made their assessment, the local jurors set forth their returns on indented sheets of parchment, on which they stated the various kinds of property held by each man, the value of the same, and the amount that he owed to the government.' One of these lists they kept, the other they handed over to the chief taxors. The latter then reviewed the assessment and placed the names of the tax-payers, with the amount that each had to pay, upon long parchment rolls for the whole county. A copy of this county roll, the so-called roll of particulars, was sent to the Exchequer. Normally the Exchequer had no other check upon the county assessors and collectors but these rolls. Only when the government desired more detailed information, as, for example, when corruption was charged, were the local assessors' lists called in. The money due on account of the subsidy was usually gathered by the local sub-taxors, handed over by them 1 The following is the usual form, the example being taken from the assessment roll of Dunton, Bucks, for the tax of 1327 : ' Henricus Mauntel habet in bonis ii. affros preoii x s., ii. boves precii xii s., ii. vaccas precii x s., ii. quartaria frumenti precii v s., iii. quartaria avene precii iiii s., Summa xli s. Inde xxa ii s., ob '. qa.'

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 174 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY to the chief taxors or their deputies, and by the latter accounted for at the exchequer. Thus far the process of assessment has been described on the basis of the instructions given in the ' form' of the taxation. It is evident that at several points there was a chance for development outside of these formal instructions. In the first place, the phrase 'movable goods' was not clearly defined. It was directed that certain specified classes of movables were not to be assessed, but the government failed to state what the movables were that should be valued. In the second place, though it was clearly stated that all movables were to be valued, and though the chief taxors took an oath to justly tax all movables, and to spare no one,' the real work of assessment was placed in the hands of men who were resident in the local districts and, therefore, apt to regard a high valuation with great disfavour. Since the chief taxors had a large area to supervise and only a short time in which to make their revision of the assessment, the valuation accepted would, as a rule, be that of the sub-assessors. In the third place, the plan of assessment and collection made no provision for an adequate checking of the work of the head taxors. Given two or three dishonest county collectors, a subservient or dishonest clerk to make up the county roll, and a careful regard on the part of these men for the susceptibilities of the tax-payers, and it was only a matter of chance whether their peculations would be discovered. These three points will serve as illustrations of the possibilities of a study of the documents accessory to the writs sent out by the central government. If one were asked to formulate a list of personal property that should have been in the possession of the men of the rural districts of England in the autumn of any year of the period under discussion, the task would not be a difficult one if taken in a general sense. 1 Examples of the oath of the assessors may be found in Palgrave, Parl. Writs, i. 24, 63, o105.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDIAEVAL SUBSIDIES 175

There would certainly be in most manors cattle of several kinds, various sorts of fowl, and several kinds of grain; there would be peas and beans, hay for the winter, and other farm products; and there would be the food in the larder, the household goods, and the farming implements of the lord of the manor and his tenants. Omit from this list the classes of goods officially excused, and it would not be materially shortened. Such would be an approximate list of movables framed by a student living in the twentieth century upon the basis of the instructions sent to the chief taxors; but the point at issue is, how did the assessors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries interpret the phrase ' movable goods' when they set about making their valuation ? For the investigation of this subject there remains a fair number of the local assessment rolls already mentioned. Excellent examples of such rolls may be found in print. Mr. Broun edited a series of these rolls for the subsidy of 1297 in the rural districts of the West Riding of Yorkshire.' The two Colchester assessment rolls for the subsidies of 1295 and 1301 are found in print in the ' Rotuli Parlia- mentorum.'2 These local assessment lists show what movable goods were valued by the sub-taxors, the usual form of statement being that John has so many cows, value so much, so many oxen, value so much, so many quarters of wheat or rye, value so much, the sum being so many shillings and pence, whence the tenth, so much. Upon the basis of such detailed enumerations it is possible to tell what taxable movables were. The rural assessment lists show a striking uniformity in the general classes of movables valued for taxation purposes, though in detail they varied according to the special

1 Yorkshire A rchcrological Society, Record Series, xvi. There are many local assessment lists preserved in the Public Record Office, e.g. Exchequer Lay Subsidies, 27- (Hereford, 1295), '9-, , .VL, _, Z.- (Bedfordshire, 1297), Rot. j4_y11, Parl. i., 228-238,Ga (Kent, 243-264.1301), W4 (Essex, 1309) etc.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 176 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY kinds of property held in any one manor or group of manors. All kinds of domestic animals were assessed, horses, oxen, sheep, and swine, and all kinds of grain, wheat, barley, rye, and oats. Peas and beans were frequently enumerated. Hay was taxed in most townships. Some carts were taxed, and now and then the goods of the rural tanner or small artisan. The normal assessment list has on it only cattle, grain, peas or beans, and a little hay. Several classes of movables were, therefore, lacking: fowl were not taxed, food in the larder was not enumerated, and the household goods, clothing, and farming implements were not assessed. Movable goods, therefore, meant to the local rural assessor something quite different from what might be reasonably expected. It would be difficult, a priori, to frame a definition of movables that would not include these articles. Numerous local variations might be added to these. In the West Riding of Yorkshire, it has been noted by Mr. Broun that the amount of hay valued was extremely small. In the same district carts were valued in but three places. The same type of variation is found in other counties. The assessment lists for the urban centres are in striking contrast with those framed by the rural sub-taxors. On the urban lists appear the domestic animals and farm produce of these half city, half farming communities. Along- side of these appear their household goods, their merchandise, their tools, the food in their larders, and their articles of luxury and dress. On the Colchester rolls there are enumerated beds and their coverlets, kitchen utensils of all kinds, clothing, rings, buckles, drinking-cups, bowls, merchandise, and many other articles. The other urban lists are similarly complete. In those more settled communities the definition of movables was, therefore, far more inclusive than it was in the country, but no such distinction is to be found in the instructions issued to the chief taxors between 129go and 1332. The broad line of demarcation thus established between

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDIEVAL SUBSIDIES 177 the rural and urban definitions of the term ' movables' was most assuredly due to some general custom not mentioned in the writs, for elsewhere in contemporary practice there seems to have been no such distinction between city movables and country movables. The basis of this custom is to be found in the past. Here is the list of movables of villeins exempted in 1225 : 1 the armour to which they were sworn, and their flesh, fish, drink, hay and forage which were not for sale. In 1283 the list of exempted goods of those who were neither merchants nor burgesses includes treasure, riding-horses, bedding, clothing, vessels, tools, geese, capons, hens, bread, wine, cider, beer, and all kinds of food ready for use.2 After 1283 no such detailed list appears in the writs, but is it not a fair inference that there is in this practice of the past the basis of the custom which was followed in later years ?3 The existence of such a custom would explain the absence of fowl, of food in the larder, and of household goods from the rural lists, and would also save the reputations of the sub-assessors. Being a custom, it would allow for numerous local variants. For example, may not the old practice of excluding from the assessment all hay which was not for sale have been observed with more generosity than strictness in a hay-producing district such as the West Riding of Yorkshire ? On the other hand, the fact that there was this differentiation between the rural and urban definitions of movables makes it extremely difficult to form any idea of the personal possessions of any man from the assessment rolls, or to make any mathematical calculations as to the correct valuation of such property. It has been shown that not all kinds of movables were

1 Patent Rolls, Henry III, i. 560-561. 2 Palgrave, Parl. Writs, i. I2. 3 Since the above was read I have examined the article of Mr. James Tait on 'Waynagium and Contenementum' in the English Historical Review, xxvii. 720-728. It would appear that the custom I have described had a broader basis than I have given it, for the same practice seems to have been used with respect to amercements. T.S.--VOL. VII. N

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 178 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

assessed in the rural districts at least, but the problem remains to be solved whether the assessors properly valued the movables that were taxed. It is also fair to inquire whether they included in their valuation all movables not specifically exempted by the instructions of 1225, 1283, and 129o. In other words, did the assessors value all of the taxable property of the residents in the rural communities at a fair market price ? There are several ways of approaching this problem, none of which would, alone, lead to a definite conclusion, but the cumulative effect of which goes far towards establishing a case against the veracity of the returns of the assessment. It does not seem to be possible to determine either the exact amount or even the extent of the evasion of formal precept, and at this time it will only be attempted to establish some of the tendencies. Recourse will first be had to the rolls of the assessors for light upon this problem, and then other documents, not made up by these officials, will be examined. That cattle varied in price according to their age or strength is a fact that can be proved by reference to any manorial bailiff's account. On many assessment rolls cows were described as old, and so of less value than other cows, and oxen were assessed now at a fairly high value, and again at one much lower. If, therefore, it is found that in an assessment of the goods in a township all oxen and all cows were valued at a standard price, it seems a fair inference that there was in that district a conventional value placed upon cows and oxen for the purposes of taxation. An examination of the local assessment lists shows that there was this tendency in a large number of townships. In the township of Horton, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the subsidy being the ninth of 1297, oxen were valued at four shillings and sixpence throughout the district. In Wistan the value of all the cows was four shillings each, and of the oxen five shillings. In Waddeworth oxen were valued at four shillings and sixpence, cows at four shillings;

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDILEVAL SUBSIDIES. 179 in Rawmarsh, all oxen at five shillings and all cows at three shillings.' This practice of using conventional values is found in a number of townships, and seems to have been a favoured method of avoiding the strict precept of the formal instructions. Because, however, of the relatively meagre number of the assessment rolls in existence, it is impossible to state how widespread this practice was. The answer to the question whether there was any omission of taxable property by the sub-assessors is far more elusive, because of our lack of knowledge of local customs with respect to exemption. In order to get at this problem in its simplest form the absence or presence of carts in the townships has been investigated. Carts were a necessary part of the rural economy of the day; they are mentioned in the accounts of the bailiffs of the manors, and they are pictured in most scenes representing the everyday life of the mediaeval peasant. In the county of Bedford, the subsidy being the ninth of 1297,2 eight carts were found assessed in six townships, out of over a dozen examined in detail. In five of these districts the carts were in the possession either of abbots or priors who held property in the township, or of the largest tax-paying layman, evidently the lord of the manor or his bailiff. In the sixth township, that of Holm, two men, each being only moderately assessed for the subsidy, were said to have carts. It is only proper to state that each of these carts, with one exception, was called carectamferratam, a cart bound with iron, presumably one with an iron tyre for its wheels. In the six townships it can hardly be believed that there were only the eight carts enumerated, and it is surely incredible that there were no carts of any kind in the other districts. It is, therefore, possible to infer either that by custom of the community ordinary carts were not valued, or that in these instances the carts of the lesser men, of whatever kind,

I Yorkshire Arch. Soc., Record Series, xvi. 6-8, Horton; 51-52, Wistan; 52, Waddeworth; 52, Rawmarsh. 2Exchequer Lay Subsidies, 2, -. N2

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 180 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY were excused. The first inference seems the more probable, for carts bound with iron must have been rather expensive. If it be true, it is an example of how the burden of taxation upon the smaller property-holders could be lessened by what may be called conventional or customary omission. It may be thought that the term tools, utensils, used in the list of exemptions of 1283, would cover carts; but is there any reason why one should include ordinary carts in that definition and not carts bound with iron as well ? The hypothesis of customary omission serves to explain certain otherwise difficult returns as to the assessment of movables. Mr. Brown states that in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in 1297, carts were taxed in only three places. 1 The West Riding was, however, a poor district, and carts bound with iron may not have been found in more than three places. To account for the absence of carts from the assessments of fairly prosperous districts in Bedfordshire is not so easy. It is, of course, quite possible that the lord of the manor did not possess one of the more expensive sort; this would be the most natural and, indeed, the most charitable way in which to treat the returns. In view, however, of the evidence of bribery which will be produced shortly, one is left with the suspicion that he may have had a cart and that he did not pay for it. At all events it would be quite unsafe to make a census of carts bound with iron on the basis of the tax returns. The county rolls drawn up by the chief taxors for use in the collection of the subsidies contain only the names of the tax-payers and the amounts that they were to pay. Yet they give evidence along the lines already discussed. In all such rolls one is constantly struck with the contrast between vills in which the sums charged against the tax- payers are in odd numbers coupled with halfpennies and farthings and those in which the columns of charges contain only round numbers, these round numbers being

Yorkshire Arch. Soc., Record Series, xvi., Introduction, xxiii.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDIEVAL SUBSIDIES I8r

very often multiples of such convenient sums as fourpence, sixpence, or a shilling. In the township of Marston, Stafford- shire, in 1327, there were twenty-four tax-payers. They paid either sixpence, twelvepence, eighteenpence, two shillings, two shillings and sixpence, three shillings, or five shillings: all multiples of sixpence.' In Lichfield there were one hundred and eight tax-payers, but the sums charged against them were, up to two shillings, multiples of sixpence, and above that sum they were multiples of one shilling. In the township of Parva Sandon the eighteen tax-payers were charged either sixpence, ninepence, twelvepence, or fifteenpence; all of these sums being multiples of threepence. To explain such phenomena it will be remembered that there was a tendency towards valuing cattle and grain at standard round numbers. On many assessment rolls the absence of half-quarters of grain is also noticeable. By using such methods it would be possible to make most of the charges come out in even numbers, but it will not explain all the cases. Here is an example taken from a roll for Staffordshire in 1344.2 It is later than the period of this study, but; as it was a re-assessment along the old lines, it will serve the purpose. In the borough of Tamworth there were twenty-five tax-payers. Of these eight were said to have five shillings' worth of property; three, goods to the value of six shillings and eightpence; six, ten shillings' worth; two, fifteen shillings' worth; four, goods to the value of twenty shillings; one to the value of thirty shillings, and one to the value of forty-eight shillings and fourpence. They would therefore pay to the tax sixpence, eightpence, one shilling, one shilling and sixpence, two shillings, three shillings, and four shillings

1 William Salt Arch. Society, Collections, vii. 197, Marston; 235-236, Lichfield ; 201, Parva Sandon. 2 Exchequer Lay Subsidy ~-t. One way of getting rid of the farthings and halfpence was frankly to round out the charges to pence. In Somerdenne, Kent, in I301, the charges which ran out to halfpence and farthings are changed on the roll to pence. Thus Iold. is made to read IId. and so on. Exchequer Lay Subsidy -1-.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 182 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

and tenpence. It seems a reasonable inference that such well rounded-out holdings of property are abnormal, and that in such townships the attempt on the part of the assessors to reach a true valuation of property was only approximate. The same result is reached if other methods of investigating these columns of names and sums of money are used. In 1327 it was provided that the minimum amount of property to be taxed should be that of the value of ten shillings. The rate of the subsidy being a twentieth, the minimum possible charge was sixpence. In the hundred of Hareclyve, Somersetshire, the lowest payment was sevenpence; in North Cory, eightpence; in Mertoke, ninepence and in the hide of Glastone one shilling.i Evidently the Glastone assessors, backed by public opinion and probably by threats of public wrath, regarded twenty shillings as the smallest holding of personal property that should be taxed, and, without regard to the instructions which set the sum of ten shillings, made the former sum their minimum. There were in the hide of Glastone about one hundred and twenty tax-payers. It is hardly to be believed that there were in such a relatively populous community no men possessing movables the value of which would fall between ten and twenty shillings. This sort of thing appears so frequently on the county rolls that one is led to conjecture that there may have been in many communities conventional minimum holdings as well as conventional prices. In the borough of New Shoreham, Sussex, there was, for the subsidies of 1296, 1327, and 1332, but one man charged with the minimum payment.2 He paid in 1296, when the minimum charge was one shilling. When, in 1327, the minimum charge was sixpence, there was not one person charged with less than one shilling out of a tax-paying population of forty-three. In 1332 the lowest possible payment was about sevenpence, but

I Somerset Record Society, iii. 93, 104, 129, 234. 2 Sussex Record Society, x. 66-67, 152, 227.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDI2EVAL SUBSIDIES 183 again no one paid either that amount or less than one shilling. New Shoreham must have been very generally prosperous for a long time, or the lesser men were not taxed. Of the two alternatives the latter seems the more reasonable. Thus far this investigation has been based upon facts gathered here and there from the official returns of the assessors. Certain types of facts gathered from other sources of information serve but to strengthen the attitude of questioning the valuations made by the assessors. Among the foreign expenses noted in the accounts of the bailiffs of the manor of Cheddington, belonging to Merton College, Oxford, there are a number of items relating to the subsidies. These items for a series of rolls are : in 1297-1298, 'Payment made to the lord King for the ninth, thirteen shillings. Given to the taxors, two shillings'; in 1313-1314, 'Expenses of the taxors of the twentieth, six pence. A gift to the same, two shillings. Paid to the same taxors . . . for the twentieth, twenty-four shillings and four pence' ; in 1316-1317, 'Expenses of the taxors of the sixteenth, eighteen pence. Paid to the taxors for the goods on the manor, . . . twenty-one shillings'; in 1332-1333, 'Expenses of the taxors of the fifteenth, two shillings and two pence. A gift to the same, three shillings. Paid to the taxors of the fifteenth for the manor . . eighteen shillings, two pence and a halfpenny.' Among the exitus grangiae for the same year there is a statement that Peter atte Welle, taxor of the fifteenth, was given four bushels of wheat 'to have his favor.' The accounts of the bailiffs of the manor of Cuxham show that the officials in Chedding- ton were not unique examples of bribers. In 1332 the reference to the subsidy on the Cuxham account reads: 'Ex- penses of the taxors, two shillings; a gift to the same, three shillings and three pence. Payment to the taxor for the fifteenth, twenty shillings.'2 In other words, the 1 Merton College MSS. 5531 (1297-1298), 5544 (1313-1314), 5546 (1316-1317), 5564 (1332-1333). 2 Ibid. 5857 (1332-1333).

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 184 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY bailiff handed over five shillings and three pence to the taxor on account of expenses and gifts, and twenty shillings as the tax upon the property on the demesne. The presents made by the bailiffs of Cheddington and Cuxham were, naturally, made with a purpose; this purpose being to keep down the assessment of the movables on the demesne. That this was so is shown by the fact that, after 1334, when the amount of the subsidy became fixed, the presents to the taxors came to an end in both Cuxham and Cheddington.1 The results of this bribery, for it was nothing else, cannot be shown in figures, however interesting such figures would be. One is left with the feeling that, since the practice was continued, bribery must have been profitable. Other- wise would not the auditors sent out by Merton College have put an end to the useless expenditure of money ? One also wonders whether the lords of the manor in Bedfordshire paid to have their carts bound with iron overlooked, and and also if other men besides manorial bailiffs were not forced at times to protect themselves in a similar fashion. It would be absurd even to insinuate universal bribery, but the fact that bribes could be entered among the expenses of a manor, without even the slightest attempt at conceal- ment, is an illuminating commentary upon the moral standards of the day. For some time this investigation has dealt largely with conjecture. Rightly or wrongly, it has been inferred that there was a considerable amount of undervaluation of the personal property of the people at large when national taxes were being levied. Most of this, it has been inferred, was due to local or national custom. The types described, conventional values, omissions, the adoption of a conventional minimum, are, perhaps, only a few of the

1 See ibid. 5569 (1337-1338), 5574 (1344-1345), 5575 (I345- 1346) these being rolls for Cheddington. The Cuxham rolls in which payments of taxes are mentioned are ibid. 5863 (1337-1338), 5864 (1338- 1339), 5865 (1339-1340), 5870 (1344-1345), etc.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDLEVAL SUBSIDIES 185 methods used to evade the heavy burden of the King's taxes. It is well to try to place ourselves in the position of the mediaeval sub-assessor, so far as this can be done. He had to accept the office thus thrust upon him, and he had to continue living in the small rural community where the assessment was made. The pressure of public opinion, with its corollary the threat of public wrath, would in most cases lead him to keep down the assessment, and to observe any or all of the practices described in order to do this. After all it would be extremely difficult for a mediaeval peasant to assume an heroic attitude over the proper valuation of the goods of his neighbours for a tax imposed by a King at the far distant city of Westminster. Any precepts of morality that emanated from that city would rightly be regarded as the expression of discontent over the returns of the subsidy. Whatever, then, one may call such plans of evading the weight of the subsidies, one can hardly place them in the same category as the bribery practised by the bailiffs of Cheddington and Cuxham, or pass too severe judgment upon the sub-assessor who used them. With the last of the series of problems set for investigation, that of the working in practice of the system of collecting the taxes upon movables, the realm of conjecture may be left behind. The evidence shows that the system worked very badly at times. It resulted in extremely slow collection and accounting, and, what is more, it left too many openings for dishonesty. It is proposed to deal only with this latter phase of the subject. Time after time charges of corrupt practice were made against a number of the head collectors. There also remain the records of the trials of some of these men, from which it is possible to gain more definite knowledge of their methods. In one case, at least, the evidence upon which the collectors were convicted has been preserved in the Public Record Office, making it possible in this instance to re-try them for the crime of stealing the King's money.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 186 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

As has been stated, the only record of the assessment usually possessed by the Exchequer was the summarised county roll made up by the scribes of the county commissioners. In case of need the barons could, of course, call in the local assessment lists and the receipts given by the head collectors to the sub-collectors in the various townships; but how were the barons to know when and where this need existed ? It was quite possible for the collectors so to change the county roll that the individuals would appear to have been charged with smaller amounts than they actually paid. Names of tax-payers might be omitted, and who would be the wiser ? Generally the barons were forced to depend upon the complaints of an individual or a group of men. If, however, the corrupt practices did not take the form of extortion, it was quite possible that the central government would never hear of the matter. From time to time charges of corruption of a general nature were made against the collectors in several counties and investigated by the rightly suspicious government. In 1276, for example, it was alleged that the taxors of the fifteenth had been guilty of altering the rolls, and a general inquiry was instituted.' In 1314 an investigation of the methods used in collecting several of the past subsidies was ordered because of the complaints of corrupt practice.2 In 1324 it was alleged that the collectors in a number of counties had been guilty of accepting bribes from the townships.3 Finally, in 1334, so widespread were the charges of corruption that the system of assessment and collection was revised. The government was not, therefore, unaware of the dangers of the system. In fact four times at least, in 1275, 1297, 1301, and 1327, supervisors were appointed to watch over the work done by the men regularly

1 C.P.R. 1272-1281, 183- 2 Palgrave, Parl. Writs, II. ii. App. 79. 3 C.C.R. 1323-1327, 74-75.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDIEVAL SUBSIDIES 187 appointed., A few cases of proved corrupt practice will show what the dangers feared were. During the year 13o9-131o, a certain John came before the treasurer and barons and exhibited a petition from a number of men of Devon, in which it was alleged that Nicholas de Kirkham, one of the collectors of the twentieth and fifteenth granted in 1307, had received from the men of that country two hundred marks more than he had charged against himself on the roll for the county.2 Asked how this charge could be proven, he answered that it could be done by an investigation of the receipts given by Nicholas to the sub-collectors and in other ways. Nicholas was summoned and denied the charge. Two investigations were made, the second bringing out the fact that Nicholas had in many instances given receipts for the proper ,amount to the sub-collectors and had then charged himself with much smaller sums on the county roll. All told, he had pocketed ?89 I6s. 31d. Since the total amount credited to Devon on the enrolled account of the subsidy was ?515 I6s. Iod., the amount of the theft was large. Nicholas was placed in gaol for a time, but finally settled with the Exchequer by paying in the amount that he had stolen. A similar charge was made against the collectors for the county of Worcester in 1334. They were tried and found guilty upon the same kind of evidence. It was claimed that they stole ?III 7S. 2d., whereas the total charge on the enrolled accounts against them was ?44' I4s.' The trial of John de Boulton, one of the collectors of the fifteenth and tenth of 1332 in the East Riding of Yorkshire, is interesting because the various receipts that he gave to the sub-collectors have been preserved as well

1 C.C.R. 1272-1279, 250-251 (1275) ; L.T.R. Memoranda Roll, No. 69 (26 Edward I), m. 39d (1297); C.P.R. 1301-1307, 2 (1301); K.R. Memoranda Roll, No. 10o4 (2 Edward III), m. 6 (1327). 2 L.T.R. Memoranda Roll, No. 8o (3 Edward II), m. i8. * K.R. Memoranda Roll, No. 112 (Io Edward III), m. 104-

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 188 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY

as the county roll.1 The charge against him was the same as that made against Nicholas de Kirkham. A comparison of the county roll and the acquittances shows that in the township of Layton he gave a receipt for forty- eight shillings, sixpence, and a halfpenny, and charged himself with but thirty-eight shillings, four pence, and a halfpenny. This was the usual method practised by dishonest collectors. Thomas, however, knew the ignorance of the Exchequer and omitted from his roll the names, and consequently the sums charged against them, of several townships, and the fraud was not detected until the next subsidy was being levied. If the ignorance of the Exchequer appears to be incredible, let it be remembered that the parish tax of 1371 was first apportioned upon the basis of the estimate of 40,000 parishes for England, and that it had to be entirely revised when it was discovered that there were less than gooo such districts. Such were some of the results of the system used in the assessment and collection of the taxes upon movables. The three lines of investigation have shown, it is hoped, the consequences of the lack of a clearly defined administrative system, with proper checks upon the evasion of the precept of the law. They also make manifest the care that must be used in dealing with mediaeval documents which have to do with taxes. Indeed, to base a history of any administrative system upon the formal documents in which the government told what was to be done is to neglect the still more important element of what the men who were supposed to follow these directions really did. And again, as in the case of the definition of movables, it is absolutely necessary to differentiate between a twentieth-century literal translation of terms and the meaning that the same terms had in the minds of the men of the Middle Ages. These are aphorisms of mediaeval research, but they have

1 K.R. Memoranda Roll, No. I12 (Io Edward III), m. 143. The acquittances may be found in Exchequer Lay Subsidy --2, and the county roll is ibid. 218

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF MEDIAEVAL SUBSIDIES 189 frequently been forgotten by writers on medixeval taxation. They have additional application here. Obviously it would be quite improper to accuse the sub-assessors of fraudulent intent when they followed a national custom in their in- terpretation of the term 'movables,' instead of a twentieth- century definition of the same term, and in the matter of conventional values and the like judgment should be suspended. When the practice of bribery is reached it is, perhaps, permissible to pass judgment against the men of the Middle Ages; but what court, even the Papal, was free from the taint of bribery ? Stealing was doubtless a crime, and no one can excuse or defend it, but the punish- ments meted out to the collectors who stole would seem to reduce this act to the status of a modern misdemeanour. It is better, on the whole, in all such matters, to state the facts of the case and not to take upon oneself the position of a judge too hastily.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:24:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms